146387-feels-like-warhound-population-is-gone-again
Content ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- just incase. where is the lock for server lock option | |} ---- ---- my problems are if thats the case it could really show almost no continue new player base after the 1st launch f2p wave | |} ---- ---- It's not a case of how much XP they give, it's how much XP they give for the time it takes to do them. The average group will wipe quite a few times so it takes a lot longer than it should. The XP gain for that time is far less than if they just did quests. Why would that be the case? You do know only a small portion of an MMO's player base does group content, right? In any given MMO, the average is about 10% that will ever do end game raiding. Slightly more than that for dungeons. A lot less bother doing dungeons while levelling. | |} ---- ---- Yep, this. It's much quicker to get one Lvl50 to run you through the dungeons a bunch of times. That said, I did two normal KV runs tonight via group finder, and that was after midnight Pacific (after 3am your time). Even as DPS, the queue popped while I was finishing up a Drusera solo instance. | |} ---- ---- Uhh are you only queueing for your server? | |} ---- Maybe some of us are. Where is the option to not do that? I looked in GF, but couldn't find it. | |} ---- Because they haven't finished the back end fixes that will prevent the server performance from turning into a crapfest again once they re-merge and open transfers. | |} ---- This is just not true in my experience (post F2P). Very few wipes and MUCH faster than doing quests. | |} ---- ---- Um. That doesn't make any sense. First of all, mergers have nothing to do with transfers. Character transfer capability already exists. I can and did move one of my Entity-2 toons to Entity-1. If the population problem was real then I should not have been able to do that. I doubt there are enough people stuck on Entity-X that want to transfer to Warhound that it would impact Warhound's performance. If population really was the concern opening up one way Entity -> Warhound transfers would only serve to alleviate those pressures on Entity. | |} ---- Can't say I'm 100% on this, but I beleive it actually does to a degree. I think it's easier to do entity 1 to 2 transfers because their database is more intergrated as opposed to warhound to entite(or the reveerse) with whom do not share their databases to the same degree or at all. I onbly say this because of hints from staff that seemed to note that the lag spikes we were experiencing were due more so to the database access,m but this is all jsut me taking a wild guess... In the end though it would be nice to get this sorted sooner than later for folks looking to relocate to warhound and or vise verse. We'll see where things go | |} ---- It's the re-merge part that's the operative term here. They have to handle the bigger issue and make sure the servers are in proper working order for the people who are going to be on a single server without paid transfers first. It's less about population issues and more about ensuring stability. Since most of the PvP happens in queued matches which are cross server anyway, they probably feel they can afford to wait. Additionally, PvE <> PvP transfers are more technically complicated because they're not the same database. They allow the 2-1 transfers because they are, and as long as the server isn't approaching a number where it will hit those concurrency problems again, it won't matter. However even though it is scripted, a PvE <> PvP transfer doesn't always happen flawlessly and is more of a burden on Support as well as the Auth server. Things may have quieted down for now, but they know when the merge happens there will be a Support burden if anything goes wrong, and they know there's going to be a Support burden when they turn on PvE <> PvP again as a paid service and people complain about all the reasons they think they deserve free ones. So instead of setting themselves up for 3 possible disruptions, they're hoping to limit it to 2, and hoping the fixes get done sooner than later. | |} ----